[For your eyes only]

Lee Ranaldo, on 02 March 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

I thought it had been stated by Short's that CFC provided payroll facilities for the DC as part of the trade off of services?

The payroll for cfcfds employees showed up as just that, on cfcfds accounts, nothing to do with the main club.
he was on the separate payroll, the club payroll, and as far as I'm aware shorts had nothing to do with the accounting or the payroll for cfcfds it was a self employed accountant and Lindrick accountants that oversaw the wages.

[Lee Ranaldo]

For your eyes only, on 02 March 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

The payroll for cfcfds employees showed up as just that, on cfcfds accounts, nothing to do with the main club.
he was on the separate payroll, the club payroll, and as far as I'm aware shorts had nothing to do with the accounting or the payroll for cfcfds it was a self employed accountant and Lindrick accountants that oversaw the wages.

Knew I'd seen it somewhere but it wasn't Short's it was one of Carson's responses to Moondog

moondog, on 05 February 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

AC hasn't provided any to me, apart from saying when the venture was first set up the club paid the wages for a couple of years which was then recouped because the DC had no payroll facility.

He was though listed as the club's Head of Academy Recruitment or something similar for a long time, despite all the assertions that we were not linked in any way

[moondog]

freelander2, on 02 March 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

Members from Bob's Board represented a local garage, an ex member of staff and a scout and the insolvency practitioner represented a scholar and his parents.

There was no other representation.

Not even FBT then despite the UK office being based down the road in Barnsley.

Disturbing thought that had bobs board members not attended he would have got away with pulling the wool over the liquidator's eyes.

[Wooden Spoon]

Mrhappy, on 02 March 2017 - 11:40 PM, said:

My thoughts exactly.

if there are, will LS implicate CT? and if CT is implicated, will he in turn........

[CFC91]

Struggling to get my head around this but it sounds massively screwed up. Who set up these meetings / who attended and how did members of this board get to go along? Fair play to those that have pursued this, seems it is going deeper than we ever imagined. Some on here have made comparisons with a certain Mr Brown, at the rate we are going it could be even worse..

[clarevoyant.]

CFC91, on 03 March 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:

Struggling to get my head around this but it sounds massively screwed up. Who set up these meetings / who attended and how did members of this board get to go along? Fair play to those that have pursued this, seems it is going deeper than we ever imagined. Some on here have made comparisons with a certain Mr Brown, at the rate we are going it could be even worse..

Thankfully some people truly have the club at heart

[Guest_freelander2_*]

For your eyes only, on 02 March 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

The payroll for cfcfds employees showed up as just that, on cfcfds accounts, nothing to do with the main club.
he was on the separate payroll, the club payroll, and as far as I'm aware shorts had nothing to do with the accounting or the payroll for cfcfds it was a self employed accountant and Lindrick accountants that oversaw the wages.

When CFCFDS started trading, the club acted as a payroll bureau for them.

Shorts were the original accountants before Lindrick's were introduced.

[Looker-on]

I notice that the firm of solicitors that Sutcliffe used to harass one of the parents is among those who have not been paid for their services.

[Stockholm Spireite]

Wow. Well done and thank you so much to the Bob's Board representatives who attended.

Is Alan Biggs available for comment? And by comment, I mean a full and frank apology to those people he tried to discredit on his "show".

[Guest_freelander2_*]

I just wonder how significant this statement is:

“The majority of the services the Company provided to its academy players were zero rated for VAT. Had the Company been VAT registered it may have been able to recover VAT on expenses incurred. The Director has calculated that this would amount to £120,000 over the first 3 years’ trading.”

Of course, following the company's incorporation in October 2012 there was nothing preventing the directors registering their business for VAT if they believed it would have been of benefit.

I suppose the benefit of not being VAT registered is the VAT man doesn't come knocking on your door.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 03 March 2017 - 09:10 AM

[Between The Sticks]

Why wasn't the business registered for VAT? As i understand it (I may be wrong) if your turnover exceeds £83k then you should register.

[Yenx]

That's right, although it's taxable turnover so maybe a loophole or two has been utilised

[60s 70s Spireite]

Between The Sticks, on 03 March 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

Why wasn't the business registered for VAT? As i understand it (I may be wrong) if your turnover exceeds £83k then you should register.

The business could likely have been classified as an educational and training organisation and be vat exempt. If it was exempt, (as opposed to being zero rated) then input vat couldn't have been reclaimed in normal circumstances.

[Sammy Spireite]

Only just catching up with this thread, but one thing I don't think has been covered yet:

The Director confirmed he'd not held directorship with any other failed companies.

Well, what happened to:

People Holdings Ltd (06024224)
People Leisure Ltd (05981198)

[For your eyes only]

Sammy Spireite, on 03 March 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

Only just catching up with this thread, but one thing I don't think has been covered yet:

The Director confirmed he'd not held directorship with any other failed companies.

Well, what happened to:

People Holdings Ltd (06024224)
People Leisure Ltd (05981198)

Exactly my friend. Exactly.

[Yenx]

Surely you're not suggesting that he was......fibbing?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Sammy Spireite, on 03 March 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

Only just catching up with this thread, but one thing I don't think has been covered yet:

The Director confirmed he'd not held directorship with any other failed companies.

Well, what happened to:

People Holdings Ltd (06024224)
People Leisure Ltd (05981198)

Both companies were dissolved, not liquidated.

[dim view]

clarevoyant., on 03 March 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

Thankfully some people truly have the club at heart

Toby Perkins, who assured the DT that all people owed money would be repaid within 3 months, will surely come riding in on his white stallion to ask searching questions.

This post has been edited by dim view: 03 March 2017 - 12:33 PM

[For your eyes only]

On the list of creditors, not all the scholars that are owed are listed by the way. Maybe some haven't followed through with paperwork which needed to be in.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

For your eyes only, on 03 March 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

On the list of creditors, not all the scholars that are owed are listed by the way. Maybe some haven't followed through with paperwork which needed to be in.

Creditors can still submit their claims. If any parents or scholars need assistance in doing so, please send them our way.